Re: -Uvh --force --nodeps not working

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



I'd like to suggest, dumb user error aside, that the ability to override
this behavior might be nice.  The user with special requirements is
already accommodated with --force, and this new flag would be in a
similar spirit.  A flag would be nice also in that it would tend to
better document the default behavior, which is not documented in the man
page, though I'm sure that other locations do a better job.  Just a
thought.

,Adam

On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 15:24, Adam Welch wrote:
> Yes, spot on correct.  Dumb user error, appreciate your feedback.
> 
> ,Adam
> 
> On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 14:54, Bob Kashani wrote:
> > On Mon, 2005-03-07 at 11:57 -0500, Adam Welch wrote:
> > > I am seeing what I believe is a repeatable problem with the behavior of
> > > -Uvh --force --nodeps.
> > > 
> > > Here's the environment.
> > > 
> > > rpm-4.2.1-4.4
> > > rpmdb-redhat-3-0.20031007
> > > Red Hat Enterprise Linux WS release 3 (Taroon Update 1)
> > > 2.4.21-9.0.1.ELsmp
> > > behavior has been found repeatable on different hosts
> > > 
> > > Here's the behavior.
> > > 
> > > 1.  /etc/httpd/conf/httpd.conf is owned by httpd-2.0.46-32.ent
> > > 2.  someone has edited httpd.conf - it no longer matches the installed
> > > version (I am thinking this may be a key issue)
> > > 3.  my company replaces this file with one of our own via mycompany.rpm
> > > 4.  we use --force --nodeps with mycompany.rpm
> > > 5.  we expect our file to replace httpd.conf - we think rpm's manpage
> > > assures us that our usage should accomplish this
> > > 6.  -Uvh --force --nodeps runs smoothly and exits with a 0
> > > 7.  httpd.conf is *NOT* replaced by the mycompany.rpm version of the
> > > file
> > > 8.  if we rm -f httpd.conf and retry, it works - httpd.conf now matches
> > > the version from mycompany.rpm
> > > 
> > > I believe that this is a bug.  I couldn't find a dup of it in RH's
> > > bugzilla.  Can someone confirm that this is a bug and/or suggest a
> > > fix/workaround?
> > 
> > This is actually normal behavior. A -U will never replace an existing
> > config file.
> > 
> > You could do as, Valery, has already suggested and use a %pre scriptlet
> > in your spec file to move/remove the old config file before the install
> > of the new one.
> > 
> > Bob
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Rpm-list mailing list
> Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx
> https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list

_______________________________________________
Rpm-list mailing list
Rpm-list@xxxxxxxxxx
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/rpm-list

[Index of Archives]     [RPM Ecosystem]     [Linux Kernel]     [Red Hat Install]     [PAM]     [Red Hat Watch]     [Red Hat Development]     [Red Hat]     [Gimp]     [Yosemite News]     [IETF Discussion]

  Powered by Linux